tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post1104430576100310962..comments2024-02-29T18:12:52.050-05:00Comments on Extra Thoughts: Follow-up on Mearsheimer et. al.Lydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-64495557940810797762012-01-20T14:54:57.194-05:002012-01-20T14:54:57.194-05:00If you've been browsing the blog, you already ...If you've been browsing the blog, you already know what I think of Finkelstein the Odious.<br /><br />I'm sure I can convince my dentist that I need to have a root canal that evening if that's necessary to get out of listening to that terrorist-lover. But we can stop talking about him now.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-86024453354946665122012-01-20T13:23:07.599-05:002012-01-20T13:23:07.599-05:00Hi, I stumbled across this blog and you seem to be...Hi, I stumbled across this blog and you seem to be very interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict, so I just want to let you know about an event coming up at WMU. Norman Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors and famous advocate for Palestinian rights, will be speaking at WMU on Jan 31 at 6:00 PM in the North Ballroom of the Bernhard Center.<br />I realize that we do not see eye to eye on this issue, but I think dialogue is almost always good. ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-74770503648241649142012-01-20T08:41:05.719-05:002012-01-20T08:41:05.719-05:00Aaron, this is a tad tedious. First, on the previo...Aaron, this is a tad tedious. First, on the previous post and thread, I provided evidence that Atzmon says that he neither "affirms nor denies" the Holocaust. You didn't even see this as significant at the time! Now that I've provided this additional evidence, this is the best you can do?<br /><br />Second, you expressly said there that anti-semites have a lot of true things to say about the Jews, so you could well imagine positively blurbing a book by an anti-semite about the alleged badness of the Jews. That speaks for itself. I'm not sure any further comment of mine could add anything.<br /><br />Third, as I said there, I find all this hypothetical stuff tedious. What in the world could be so incredibly stellar and important elsewhere in Atzmon's book that someone should blurb it? Why even talk about these hypotheticals? Actually, please don't answer that.<br /><br />Fourth, plenty of commentators all over the web have given _additional_ information showing that the book is a piece of garbage. I suppose if you went and read all of that you would still be telling us that maybe they just left out the good parts. This reminds me of a scene in _The Wind in the Willows_ where Toad is trying to sell a horse to a gypsy. He tells the gypsy that the horse is part thoroughbred, then adds, "Not the parts you see, of course."<br /><br />Fifth, actually, if someone is pushing this kind of vile stuff, no, you shouldn't blurb his book at all unless he finds a cure for cancer and writes about it in a book that has nothing to do with the Jews. Then you can blurb that book. There is such a thing as disassociating oneself from people who traffic in scumminess.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-1841690579755335262012-01-20T05:46:49.691-05:002012-01-20T05:46:49.691-05:00Yep, I agree that's crackpot, anti-Semitic rev...Yep, I agree that's crackpot, anti-Semitic revisionism. So repudiate Atzmon, fine. But again, why repudiate everything he's written in the book? Why lump it all together instead of splitting it into the true and the false, the good and the bad? And if the good is enough to make the book worth reading, why not blurb it?<br /><br />On lumping versus splitting I'll quote...a philosopher! Here's Hegel, from his feuilleton <a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/se/abstract.htm" rel="nofollow">"Who Thinks Abstractly?"</a>:<br /><br /><i>A murderer is led to the place of execution. For the common populace he is nothing but a murderer. Ladies perhaps remark that he is a strong, handsome, interesting man. The populace finds this remark terrible: What? A murderer handsome? How can one think so wickedly and call a murderer handsome; no doubt, you yourselves are something not much better! This is the corruption of morals that is prevalent in the upper classes, a priest may add, knowing the bottom of things and human hearts.<br /><br />...<br /><br />This is abstract thinking: to see nothing in the murderer except the abstract fact that he is a murderer....</i>Aaronnoreply@blogger.com